Nothing, I explicitly said "we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it." I don't know how I could have made it more clear.
She is telling the world that she thinks Harris is the best choice to vote for in this election. It's 100% an endorsement. Literally by definition. People seem to be confusing endorsing someone to marrying yourself to all of their views.
I've literally never heard anything even remotely close to this. Can you point me to someone who has said something that would make this an even remotely fair assessment?
Except, by definition, she is endorsing Harris by publicly supporting her candidacy. Endorse doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for, but if you are publicly saying who you are voting for, that's an endorsement.
I live in a small suburb right outside of a major us city.
To the nearest convenience store: .6 km
To the nearest chain supermarket: .9 km
To the bus stop: .3km
To the nearest park: 1.0km
To the nearest big supermarket: .9km
To the nearest library: 1.2km
To the nearest train station: .6km
Straight-line distance to big Ben: 5708 km
You certainly got me on big Ben distance.
But this is why the question is kind of silly. America is a huge, diverse place. When I lived in NYC, I was probably closer to everything than you. Where I grew up in an almost rural area, the closest thing was over 5km away. And this isn't even all that bad because I had a friend who grew up in an unincorporated area where she had to drive 30min just to get her mail.
And you being a nobody on the internet means your opinion is at least as meaningless as hers...yet here you are trying to convince everyone that your opinion is correct.
The only issue that really matters to me is climate change. Or maybe plastic.
But this is the same as the picture of the statue of liberty that is used to "debunk" sea level rise by showing the level at the same height, despite being taken 100 years apart. Were they taken at the same tide? Same time of year? Is there any other factor at play here?
This is a "shoe is on the other foot" moment, and we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it. Maybe especially so because confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
When you've convinced yourself of "muh both sides" everything that happens just further confirms it. Like if Trump were to end up behind bars. . .do you think this poster would all of a sudden realize that both sides are not the same? Nope. They would just convince themselves that Trump was actually an outsider. . .and then probably pretend that they maintained this position the whole time.
Yeah but I sold myself on both sides being the same side and I've been pushing it so hard for so long that I'm absolutely married to the idea and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.
Other than untracking tracked files, I see nothing in this graphic that isn't easy to do with a gui. That might even be easy to do but it is something I do in the cli. Can I get some examples?
I would also argue that the common/basic stuff is 99% of what I do with git. And for this I can't fathom why people would think the cli is better. Like logging and diffing is just so much easier when I can just scroll and click as opposed to having to do a log command, scroll, then remember the hashes, and then write the command. This is something instantly available to me in a gui.
Don't get me wrong, if the cli is better for you more power to you. We moved from p4 to git and I did this almost exclusively in the cli so I could use scripts more easily. And sometimes I watch beginners use the gui and I have to bite my tongue because I know it would be faster in the cli.
But, especially for a beginner, i strongly recommend a gui.
Nothing, I explicitly said "we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it." I don't know how I could have made it more clear.